4.5 Article

Aflatoxin Binders II: Reduction of aflatoxin M1 in milk by sequestering agents of cows consuming aflatoxin in feed

期刊

MYCOPATHOLOGIA
卷 157, 期 2, 页码 233-241

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:MYCO.0000020587.93872.59

关键词

aflatoxin B1; aflatoxin M1; bentonite; activated carbon; esterified glucomannan; sequestering agents

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sequestering agents bind dietary aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and reduce absorption from an animal's gastrointestinal tract. As a result, they protect an animal from the toxic effects of AFB1 and reduce transfer of the metabolite, aflatoxin M1 (AFM1), into milk. Three experiments, using late-lactation Holstein cows fed AFB1-contaminated feed, were conducted to evaluate several potential sequestering agents for their abilities to prevent or reduce the transmission of AFM1 into milk. Six agents previously tested in our laboratory for AFB1 binding in vitro were evaluated in these experiments. These were: SA-20(R), an activated carbon (AC-A); Astra-Ben-20(R), a sodium bentonite (AB-20); MTB-100(R), an esterified glucomannan (MTB-100); Red Crown(R), a calcium bentonite ( RC); Flow Guard(R), a sodium bentonite (FG); and Mycrosorb(R), a sodium bentonite ( MS). Five of the six sequestering agents significantly (P<0.01) reduced AFM1 contamination of milk (AB-20, 61%; FG, 65%; MS, 50%; MTB-100, 59%; and RC, 31%); whereas, AC-A, activated carbon, had no effect on AFM1 transmission at 0.25% of feed. By the first milking ( 1 day after cows consumed contaminated feed), AFM1 appeared in milk, then reached maximum levels after three days, and was absent from milk within four days after AFB1 was removed from the feed. Sodium bentonites at 1.2% of feed showed good potential as AFB1 binders; MTB-100, a yeast cell wall product, was equally effective at 0.05% in feed. Potential AFB1 binding agents should be evaluated experimentally to demonstrate efficacy. Our data show that sequestering agents can reduce AFM1 in milk of cows fed AFB1-contaminated feed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据